Skip to content

Red Sox redefine what it means to be dynasty

Oct 31, 2013, 12:41 PM EDT

These Boston Red Sox are a new kind of dynasty. I suppose there’s a question if they really ARE a dynasty, if that word “Dynasty” even means anything in today’s game, with 30 teams and the game’s structure pushing toward parity. But Boston did win its third World Series in a 10-year-span. Only eight teams have done that since the Live Ball Era began in 1920.

— The 1923-32 Yankees — powered By Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Herb Pennock, Waite Hoyt, etc. — won four World Series.

— The 1926-34 Cardinals – first Rogers Hornsby and then the Gashouse Gang with Frankie Frisch and Ripper Collins and Pepper Martin — won three World Series.

— The 1936-43 Yankees — with some leftovers from the earlier dynasty plus Joe DiMaggio, Bill Dickey, Lefty Gomez, Joe Gordon — won six World Series.

— The 1942-46 Cardinals — Stan Musial, Enos Slaughter, Marty Marion — won three World Series.

— The 1947-62 Yankees won 10 World Series. In the early years of baseball’s greatest dynasty the Yankees were driven by DiMaggio, Yogi Berra, Phil Rizzuto and so on. The later years was driven by Mickey Mantle, Whitey Ford, Roger Maris, Elston Howard and so on. It’s hard to draw dynasty lines when it comes to the Yankees because one dominant team simply bumps into another.

— The 1955-65 Dodgers won four World Series. The first was the last stand for Brooklyn and the Boys of Summer — Jackie Robinson, Gil Hodges, Roy Campanella and that great bunch. The last three championships were in L.A., with Sandy Koufax and Don Drysdale at the heart.

— The 1972-74 Oakland Athletics won three World Series in a row. The best players: Reggie Jackson, Catfish Hunter, Rollie Fingers, Vida Blue, Joe Rudi.

— The 1996-2009 Yankees dominated their time with five World Series championships — Derek Jeter, Jorge Posada, Andy Pettitte and Mariano Rivera were on the first and last of those teams.

More: Red Sox win World Series after routing Cards | What a difference a year makes

— I went through all eight of those dynasties for a reason: There is something connecting them all. When you think of those dynasty teams, you think of players. You might think of managers — Casey Stengel, Walter Alston, Joe McCarthy, Joe Torre. You might think of a certain style, a certain rhythm, a certain ethos. You might think of the nicknames and rebelliousness of the 1970s A’s, the high mounds of the 1960s Dodgers, the Murderers’ Row lineup of the Ruth-Gehrig Yankees.

This Red Sox team? No. They have none of that. Oh, they’ve had great players. They’re just not the SAME great players. You’ve probably seen the answer already, but do you know how many players on this year’s Red Sox championship team were also on the Red Sox team that broke the curse in 2004?*

*Speaking of curses: A lot of people, it seemed, were trying to make a big deal out of the fact that this year was the first time that the Red Sox had clinched a World Series AT HOME since 1918. Television made it seem like the overriding story of the Series. The “clinch at home” angle seemed to give everyone a chance to trot out all the old curse talk, rehash the Babe Ruth trade, chat up all the old Red Sox fans who have been coming to the park for decades and had never gotten the chance to see a World Series clincher.

Seriously – clinching a World Series at home is a thing now? It’s not enough to just win two World Series in the previous eight years, not you have to win it at home for it to really count? I mean, look, it’s great that a wonderful town like Boston got to win the World Series in a wonderful park like Fenway. Happy that it worked out that way. It was great to see Red Sox fans get to unleash their happiness.

But I believe, and my Red Sox friends seem agree — not winning a World Series AT HOME is not a thing. It’s not a curse. It’s not a drought. It’s not anything. If you win a World Series you win a World Series, it doesn’t matter where. The Chicago White Sox have not clinched a World Series at home since 1906. The Reds did not clinch either of the Big Red Machine World Series at home. Those poor Giants fans have never clinched a World Series in San Francisco. So what? The Red Sox don’t have a losing tradition anymore. It’s over, you can’t just keep bringing it up like it’s a storyline. The Red Sox have won three World Series in 10 years. It’s time for everyone to just deal with being Boston being Goliath.

Sorry, back to the question: How many players from 2004 — even in a minor role — were on the 2013 team?

Answer: One. That’s ONE. Uno. Une. Odin. Um. Ett. David Ortiz is the only one left. He was an awesome DH for the 2004 Red Sox. He was an awesome DH for the 2013 Red Sox. That’s all. One.

And this goes beyond players. The manager is gone. The general manager is gone. The pitcher and catcher on that 2004 team — Pedro Martinez and Jason Varitek — are now special assistants to Ben Cherington, who was a player-development guy back for the Red Sox then. The highest ranked guy in the front office who seems to have the same job he had in 2004 is writer, historian and sabermetrician Bill James. More on him in a minute.

More: Ortiz wins World Series MVP | Is Papi headed to the Hall?

The point is not that this team has changed from 2004. All teams change. The 2009 Yankees were very different from the 2000 Yankees. No, the point is that this is a completely different team from 2004. And, even stranger, the 2007 team in the middle that won a World Series is kind of distinct from either team. Take a look at the Top 5 WAR from each team.

2004: Johnny Damon, Ortiz, Manny Ramirez, Varitek, Mark Bellhorn.

2007: Ortiz, Mike Lowell, Kevin Youkilis, Dustin Pedroia, Coco Crisp.

2013: Pedroia, Shane Victorino, Jacoby Ellsbury, Ortiz, Mike Napoli.

Other than Ortiz on all three teams and Pedroia the last two, there are no matches. And top five pitchers by WAR? It’s even more striking.

2004: Curt Schilling, Martinez, Keith Foulke, Bronson Arroyo, Mike Timlin.

2007: Josh Beckett, Daisuke Matsuzaka, Schilling, Jonathan Papelbon, Hideki Okajima.

2013: Clay Buchholz, Koji Uehara, Jon Lester, John Lackey, Craig Breslow.

Other than Schilling, again, no overlap whatsoever. The Red Sox dynasty, if you are willing to call it that, represents three distinct and largely unconnected teams.

This is the time in which we live. Baseball is geared heavily against dynasties these days. There are the reasons everyone talks about how much it costs to try and keep a great team together. That cost can hit you two ways. One, the obvious way, it can cost too much to keep your best players. The Pittsburgh Pirates of the early 1990s won three consecutive division titles, then Barry Bonds and others left for more money, and the Pirates were dreadful. The 1990s Cleveland Indians went to two World Series, then Manny Ramirez and Jim Thome and Bartolo Colon and others priced themselves out and they had to start over. The 2003 Marlins had a young Beckett and Miguel Cabrera and others, but, not long after, did not have any of them.

But there the less obvious and perhaps deadlier way cost can destroy a great team. This happens when teams spend a ton of money to keep their best players (or to import new ones). This can often cripple the team in utterly unexpected ways. Look at the Yankees now. Look at the Angels. This, of course, happened to the Red Sox. They spent a fortune on Adrian Gonzalez and Carl Crawford and Lackey and a fortune to retain Beckett, Youkilis and Papelbon. And what they found was that when things weren’t going well, they were powerless to do much about it. The team got stale. The older players faded but were huge investments and so played too big a role. There was no freedom to make changes. The Red Sox floundered away a playoff berth in 2011. They were the worst Red Sox team in a couple of generations in 2012.

That’s why the Red Sox get so much credit for the enormous trade they made with the Dodgers last year. They should. The Red Sox didn’t really GET anybody in that deal. And they traded away good players — Gonzalez had a good year for the Dodgers, Crawford wasn’t bad when he was healthy — but it was still a win for the Red Sox. They were able to take the team back. They were able to reorder and refocus the direction. And some good things followed, some expected, some not. Lackey rebounded, which was huge. Uehara decided to become unhittable, which was huge. Victorino, at 32, took to Fenway Park (he hit .322/.365/.485 there and was fantastic defensively) and had perhaps his best season. That, too, was huge.

And the rest came together. The starting pitching was good enough. The bullpen was terrific despite injuries. The lineup blended familiar Red Sox faces like Pedroia, Ortiz and Ellsbury with some shrewd choices like Victorino, Napoli, and 30-year-old minor-league lifer Daniel Nava. They led all of baseball in runs scored.

So, they were smart about the way they built this team. But it isn’t just cost that crushed dynasties. It isn’t just the crazy distractions that come after winning. No, there’s something more direct: You need postseason luck to win a World Series now. Take a look at the dynasties above. Six of the eight came before the 1969 expansion. That meant the teams who won their league went right to the World Series. They did not have to pass Go. They did not have to collect $200. There were no five-game Division Series. There was no seven-game Championship Series. Win the league, win the Series. Two steps.

The Oakland A’s of the early 1970s had three steps. They had to win five-game championship series each of their three seasons. They beat Detroit in 1972, Baltimore in ’73 and ’74. Two of those series went five games.

Then you look at the amazing Yankees run where they won four World Series in five years. It was an incredible run because suddenly there were FOUR steps. Win the division (or Wild Card). Win the Division Series. Win the Championship Series. Win the World Series. Even great teams need luck. The Yankees did. The Jeter flip (or the Jeremy Giambi non-slide). The Jeffrey Maier game. In 2000, the Yankees won only 87 games — they had the fifth-best record in the American League — but they made it into the playoffs, and they won the World Series.

Then, for the next eight years, the Yankees did not win the World Series. They were almost annually the best team. The Yankees had the best record in the American League in 2002, ‘03, ‘04, ’06 and ’07 (tie) and did not win the World Series any of those years (You can throw in ‘11 and ’12, too). This is the essence of the playoff system. It brings a lot more luck into the game. It basically invalidates the season. It gives the surviving teams a fresh start in a much more volatile kind of tournament. Not one time from 2000-12 did the best record in the American League play the best record in the National League.

So, to win three World Series in a decade the way the Red Sox have, they have needed to win nine postseason series. And in many ways, winning the actual World Series has been the easy part. In 2004, the Red Sox had to come from a 3-0 deficit against the Yankees in the ALCS. In 2007, the Red Sox trailed the Cleveland Indians 3-1 in the ALCS. They roared back and stomped Cleveland three in a row. This year, the real challenge was probably Game 2 against Detroit in the ALCS. The Red Sox had lost Game 1 at home, they trailed Game 2 by four runs in the eighth inning when Jim Leyland went to his calamitous bullpen and Papi hit the grand slam. No slam, it’s hard to see the Red Sox winning that series.

More: Cardinals will be back, and often | Ellsbury, Drew take star turns in possible Fenway finales

But they did. Three times in the last decade they got into the postseason and then navigated through. It’s a different kind of success from Stengel’s Yankees or Koufax’s Dodgers. This is what a 21st Century dynasty looks like.

Finally, Bill James. As mentioned, he seems to be the highest-ranking front-office guy — not counting the executive guys like president Larry Lucchino and owner John Henry — to have been around for all three championships. It’s hard to say exactly what Bill does for the Red Sox. He’s very discreet about it, and he would never take any credit whatsoever for Boston’s success. It was funny to see Jonny Gomes, in the glow of winning a World Series, choose to rip sabermetrics — a word Bill James coined — since I’m guessing it was probably some sabermetric thinking that got Gomes to Boston in the first place.

But here’s something to think about. A little more than a year ago, when the Red Sox were in the middle of their disastrous season, Henry went public with his complaint that the Red Sox had not listened enough to James in recent years. James is one of the great baseball minds in the history of the game. He has changed the way countless people look at baseball – and other things too. He is constantly questioning what we know, what we think we know, what we should know, what we can’t know. In his role with the Red Sox, he does not decide who to trade, who to draft, who to acquire, who to start or how to play. He is just there to ask questions and to be a different voice.

The Red Sox had stopped listening to him for a while, and they fell off considerably. I’m not saying ignoring Bill James was the reason why they went in the tank. But I do think it was a symptom of why. They stopped asking questions because, I think, they believed that they had all the answers.

John Henry announced last year that Bill James would report directly to him, and his voice would again be heard in the organization. Did that make a difference? I suspect people in Boston are too busy celebrating another World Championship to worry too much about it.

  1. jbriggs81 - Oct 31, 2013 at 12:46 PM

    Dynasty? seriously? They are absolutely not a dynasty

    • pastabelly - Oct 31, 2013 at 1:05 PM

      I’m a Red Sox fan who agrees with you. Dynasties don’t miss the playoffs three years in a row or lose 93 games. Also, this year’s team singularly stands on its own.

      • dan1111 - Oct 31, 2013 at 2:12 PM

        Joe Posnanski Redefines What It Means to Be Dynasty?

      • drewsylvania - Oct 31, 2013 at 2:40 PM

        Seconded. Also:

        1) Three championships in ten years is a selective endpoint. Especially since it’s unique to the Red Sox. None of the other franchises in Poz’s list took ten years to win three. NONE.
        2) If the argument is “three titles in ten years”, why are a whopping four of the other eight teams compared in time periods lasting longer than ten years?

        Used to be impressed by Poz, but this is some seriously mailed-in stuff.

    • mydoghasfleez - Oct 31, 2013 at 2:15 PM

      Dynasty? Pullleeez!

  2. barrywhererufrom - Oct 31, 2013 at 12:51 PM

    1996 1998 1999 2000 champs..that is a dynasty..winning three in ten years is inpressive but nowhere near a dynasty..

    • kopy - Oct 31, 2013 at 12:54 PM

      Especially with no other AL pennants and a last place finish in that same span.

    • gerryb323 - Oct 31, 2013 at 1:15 PM

      Did you guys read the article? That is the whole idea (and, in fact, the title).

      Dynasty now doesn’t mean the same thing that it meant years ago. And, of course, the Yankees of the late 90s were more impressive, but I think there has even been a shift since then.

      • gbrim - Oct 31, 2013 at 2:24 PM

        Perhaps it doesn’t mean the same thing to Posnanski or to you gerryb323, but it means exactly what it meant years ago to me. In other words, Boston had a great year, but that is no dynasty we just watched, in my opinion.

      • gerryb323 - Oct 31, 2013 at 2:49 PM


  3. cabby782 - Oct 31, 2013 at 1:00 PM

    A dynasty ? Come on man get F ing real! One championship does not a dynasty make. No way no how . Why do you all think anything out of Boston is the greatest? When they win 2 or 3 more of the next 4or5 then we can start talking dynasty

    • mydoghasfleez - Oct 31, 2013 at 2:43 PM

      “……..Why do you all think anything out of Boston is the greatest?………….”

      Ever hear of the Celtics?

      Does that answer your rather lame question?

  4. kinanik - Oct 31, 2013 at 1:01 PM

    The higher the quality of competition, the closer the average age in the league approaches 27 and the fewer players there are at the tails. This means, on average, shorter effective careers (though modern medicine has widened the skill distribution on the right end). This means, too, more turnover in effective players. Does the quality of competition, then, decrease the probability and lifespan of dynasties?

    • dan1111 - Nov 1, 2013 at 3:13 AM

      Do you have any evidence that players’ careers are shorter now than they were in the past? To me, it appears to be the opposite.

      However, then end of the reserve clause and the introduction of free agency mean that players move between teams much more. Other than the recent Yankees (who can afford to keep every good player for their career), all of the dynasties Joe mentions occurred before free agency.

      Also, the expanded playoffs make it much harder to win successive World Series. Previously, if you dominated the regular season, you had roughly a 50% chance of winning the Series. Now, even if you are the best team in the baseball your odds of winning it all are probably less than 20%.

  5. pastabelly - Oct 31, 2013 at 1:02 PM

    John Henry can now get back to focusing on his failing soccer team and NASCAR team and he and Bill James can get out of Ben Cherrington’s way.

    • Joe - Oct 31, 2013 at 1:31 PM

      The “failing soccer team” is having its best season in at least five years.

      • APBA Guy - Oct 31, 2013 at 3:00 PM

        Beat me to it. Liverpool plays Arsenal next. Very important game early in the season to see who can hang with Chelsea.

  6. moogro - Oct 31, 2013 at 1:16 PM

    Great article.

  7. skippynj - Oct 31, 2013 at 1:18 PM

    Anyone that thinks the sox are a dynasty has been drinking the kool-aid, or in Boston’s case, the juice.

    • psousa1 - Oct 31, 2013 at 1:29 PM

      No, the Yankees cornered the market on ‘The Juice’. Clemens, Pettite, Stanton, Cervelli, Giambi, Knoblauch, ARod, Chad Curtis, Gary Sheffield

      not to mention the cocaine cowboys of Howe, Strawberry and Gooden.

      Those Joe Torre clubhouses could have gone up like a bomb at any given moment.

      • fanofevilempire - Oct 31, 2013 at 4:12 PM

        and nobody on Boston ever did any juice as per Mitchell report.

      • skids003 - Oct 31, 2013 at 4:19 PM

        No, they were on chicken and beer.

  8. csmountaineer - Oct 31, 2013 at 1:23 PM

    Boston is definitely not a dynasty. like a previous guy said, they missed playoffs 3 years in a row AND had a 93 loss season. NOTA DYNASTY. also, a different core of players for each championship. In no way is this a dynasty.

  9. aceshigh11 - Oct 31, 2013 at 1:24 PM

    Not even 24 hours later, and the unhinged hatred is flowing at near-frenzied levels, as evidenced by the lunatic, nonsensical postings above.

    Reminds me of the psychotic, murderous tirades posted online after Obama’s two presidential victories.

    • KR - Oct 31, 2013 at 1:53 PM

      Bush got far worse said about him, and by far more prominent voices. Not that you’d admit it.

      • skids003 - Oct 31, 2013 at 4:20 PM

        KR, right on the money, but you’re on a liberal blog, you’ll get many thumbs down.

      • drewsylvania - Oct 31, 2013 at 5:03 PM

        He deserved far worse said about him.

  10. rickdobrydney - Oct 31, 2013 at 1:28 PM

    Ahhh yes, a PED-fueled dynasty—–

  11. raysfan1 - Oct 31, 2013 at 1:29 PM

    To me, the word dynasty is over-used in sports. Only one baseball team can really talk about sustained excellence over more than a single generation–the Yankees 1923-1962.

    As for whether winning the WS at home is a bigger deal than winning on the road…since the Sox were the home team in 2004, 2007, and this year, clinching at home required losing 2 games. Winning the WS is winning the WS, but I can’t see why someone would think winning a series 4-2 is somehow more special than winning 4-0 from the perspective of fans of the winning team.

    • natstowngreg - Oct 31, 2013 at 1:38 PM

      Agreed. While Joe’s argument is very interesting, I see a “dynasty” as having a much longer timeframe. I mean franchises that not just win some championships, but contend for championships over decades. In addition to the Yankees, I see only 2 other North American pro sports franchises as being anything close to a “dynasty” — the Boston Celtics and Montreal Canadiens.

  12. sfsugator - Oct 31, 2013 at 1:39 PM

    The World Series started???? I wouldn’t know because fox always showed Erin Andrews reporting fans in the stands rather than the game, Baseball sucks since they started making up rules against the juice. Baseball tried to take away pretty much a whole decade of baseball by putting asterisks next to stats. Until the long ball comes back the average fan will tune in else where.

  13. drewnichols81 - Oct 31, 2013 at 1:46 PM

    The only thing close to a Dynasty was on the losing end of this series

  14. sdelmonte - Oct 31, 2013 at 1:46 PM

    The “clinch at home” thing was tied to: a) Fenway being a famous park; and b) the “Boston strong” narrative. Both are somewhat understandable, and completely overplayed. And when you combine them, you get this nonsense.

  15. KR - Oct 31, 2013 at 1:54 PM

    Out of the many comments here, it looks like maybe two people actually read the article. You can’t just respond to the title, people. Well, you can, but then you look like an idiot.

    • bosfaninva - Oct 31, 2013 at 2:01 PM


    • Paul Zummo - Oct 31, 2013 at 2:07 PM

      That’s why whenever Joe refers to his “Brilliant Readers,” I take it he’s referring to the ones reading his personal blog where he crossposts, because he sure as hell ain’t talking about this lot (with certain exceptions).

  16. bosfaninva - Oct 31, 2013 at 1:57 PM

    At least have the commenters (it’s not easy to figure out which ones) clearly did not read the article. Short attention spans are so sad.

    • bosfaninva - Oct 31, 2013 at 1:58 PM

      half not have! d’oh!

  17. nolanwiffle - Oct 31, 2013 at 2:10 PM

    Not to get too far afield here, but Poz probably should have included the 1969-1979 Baltimore Orioles on his list of modern-day dynasties. Here’s how they fared once Divisional play was established:

    1969: 109 wins, 1st in the AL East….lost WS
    1970: 108 wins, 1st in the AL East….won WS
    1971: 101 wins, 1st in the AL East….lost WS
    1972: 80 wins, 3rd in AL East
    1973: 97 wins, 1st in AL East
    1974: 91 wins, 1st in AL East
    1975: 90 wins, 2nd in AL East
    1976: 88 wins, 2nd in AL East
    1977: 97 wins, 2nd in AL East
    1978: 90 wins, 4th in AL East
    1979: 102 wins, 1st in AL East….lost WS

    In 11 year span- 1,053 regular season wins, six division titles, 4 pennants, 1 championship

    *Footnote: O’s won the WS in 1966 prior to Divisional play

    • nolanwiffle - Oct 31, 2013 at 2:39 PM

      Q: Hey Nolan, why’d you stop at 1979?
      A: I’m not sure

      1980: 100 wins, 2nd in AL East
      1981: 59 wins, 2nd in AL East (strike season)
      1982: 94 wins, 2nd in AL East
      1983: 98 wins, 1st in AL East….. won WS

      15 years, 1,404 regular season wins (with one strike shortened season), 7 division titles, 5 pennants, 2 championships

  18. goodknave - Oct 31, 2013 at 2:13 PM

    Winning seems to be easy when the only guy in your lineup who can hit is an obvious steroid cheat and you win games with 3-run flyballs off a whiffle ball wall in left field.

    This is the worst World Champ since the ’88 Dodgers.

  19. zerohandicapper - Oct 31, 2013 at 2:26 PM

    49ers, Steelers, Yankees, Bulls….only dynasty’s to ever exist.

    • 18thstreet - Oct 31, 2013 at 2:43 PM

      So the Celtics winning eight consecutive championships … not a dynasty?

      Why am I arguing with you? Don’t I have anything better to do? What’s the matter with me?

      • zerohandicapper - Nov 1, 2013 at 1:29 AM

        You are correct. My fault on that one. Was rattling ones off during my lifetime.

    • mgv38 - Oct 31, 2013 at 2:54 PM

      Never heard of the Celtics, eh?

      • mgv38 - Oct 31, 2013 at 2:55 PM

        UCLA basketball?

      • zerohandicapper - Nov 1, 2013 at 1:30 AM

        See above

    • nbjays - Oct 31, 2013 at 3:58 PM

      Montreal Canadiens? Edmonton Oilers? New York Islanders?

    • raysfan1 - Oct 31, 2013 at 3:59 PM

      Brazilian national soccer team, Real Madrid, Soviet hockey team.

    • raysfan1 - Nov 1, 2013 at 12:02 AM

      Your named NFL teams are not the two most dominant teams in professional football history either–the Cleveland Browns went to 11 championship games in 12 years and won 7 of them. Second is the 1960’s Green Bay Packers going to 6 NFL championship games and winning 5, plus the first two Super Bowls.

      In my own view, as I stated above, to be a dynasty there needs to be sustained excellence across more than one generation. So, I’d actually say there are no dynasties in professional football history.

  20. anxovies - Oct 31, 2013 at 2:38 PM

    Dynasty (Mirriam-Webster): a family, team, etc., that is very powerful or successful for a long period of time.

    The Yankees did that for a considerable portion of the 20th Century. To say that the Red Sox have redefined the term as it pertains to sport is to dumb down the term to where it is meaningless. Congratulations to Boston but you are no dynasty. I knew a dynasty.

  21. perryt200 - Oct 31, 2013 at 2:39 PM

    Sure there may be more post season games to play, but dynasties do not go from worst to first.

  22. 18thstreet - Oct 31, 2013 at 2:40 PM

    Are we allowed to use the “report comment” button for people who didn’t read the article and commented anyway? Or would that clear out three-quarters of what’s on this page?

  23. cliverush - Oct 31, 2013 at 2:48 PM

    You know you are a winner when the hate mail pours in. The Red Sox were able to rebuild because they admitted to themselves that mistake wee made and things needed to change. Many organizations in sports never do this and lose on a consistant basis. Look at the positives of this team and how they enabled them to win. By the way the Celtics belong in your list Mr.Zero.

    • 18thstreet - Oct 31, 2013 at 2:50 PM

      I’d also like to add that the Pacific is a much better ocean than the Atlantic.

      • nbjays - Oct 31, 2013 at 3:59 PM

        And pie > cake

  24. coloradostupid - Oct 31, 2013 at 3:08 PM

    This would have never happened under the Yawkey’s. Other teams really need to embrace change (yo Monforts) like the current Red Sox ownership has. I can see that in the early years of the John Henry era, that they did think they had all the answers – now they realize they don’t.

  25. tuffnstuff - Oct 31, 2013 at 3:14 PM

    Congratulations to the Red Sox. They currently have a great team. It’s no dynasty, however. (See Yankees of the 50’s, a few years of the 60’s, 70’s, and definitely the 90’s.) Yes, I am a Yankee fan.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. J. Baez (2263)
  2. B. Crawford (2227)
  3. H. Pence (2184)
  4. B. Harper (2107)
  5. C. Seager (1969)